Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
Let's not forget in all of this that IDS did not stand up and make a claim about anything. He was ambushed by someone who was pretty soon afterwards discovered to be lying.
He answered a direct question and said "If I had to, I could". Within that short sentence there is room for endless interpretation, and it seems to me that a lot of people are interpreting it a little generously, making very long lists of 'essentials' and then proving with paper and pencil that you can't live that list of 'essentials' on £53.
A fairer way of looking at it would be to see IDS affirming he would be able to cope on equal terms with the man in question (terms which, as we now know, are a little less straitened than £53). Or, better still, you could take his words at naked face value. Yes, you *could* live on £53 for a week, if you *had* to, because if you *had* to, then you would simply prioritise what you need to stay alive and buy that first. Everything else, even some of the things you might class as 'essential' such as internet access, become extras that you may or may not be able to afford.
I have no doubt that someone as intelligent and resourceful as IDS, especially with his military training, *could* live on £53 if he *had* to.
---------- Post added at 18:46 ---------- Previous post was at 18:45 ----------
Incidentally, I've been going back over our online grocery receipts (as we get everything delivered) and a fair estimate of our average weekly grocery bill, ie. all our eating and cleaning, is somewhere between £80 and £90 for a family of five.
|
no this is the way that agrees with you it is only fairer for you and those who agree with you but nice try
---------- Post added at 19:43 ---------- Previous post was at 19:41 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh
As far as i'm concerned the argument always goes back to the original intent of the benefits system imo .People should get what they need not what they want and that argument should be just as valid in 2013 as it was in 1940
|
I agree with this 100 %
When you get any form of benefit award you get a sheet of paper stating "the minimum amount of money you need to live on" this figure has come from the government . So the council benefit cuts come on top of this so what you get in effect is the minimum amount of money you need minus the cash you lose to the council making the money you get less than what the government say you need. These figures have stayed the same ie not increase for inflation they have not been dropped by the government so people are now getting less than the government say they need